Looking back…thinking forward: Dialogic space, indigenous leadership, and integrated catchment management in New Zealand. Dr. Giles Dodson Department of Communication Studies Unitec Institute of Technology [email protected] Abstract This paper analyses the processes community engagement and dialogue which are part of an ongoing collaborative stakeholder partnership in Northland, New Zealand. This project - the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group – is a multi-stakeholder partnership, led by indigenous (Māori) groups. The project seeks to bridge several divides; adopting a large-scale ‘whole of ecosystem’ conceptual approach to understanding; addressing the environmental pressures on the Kaipara Harbour catchmentl; and integrating indigenous and western environmental management practices. As a partnership, the IKHMG is centrally concerned with the creation of deliberative and dialogic spaces through which community partnership and collaboration is formed. Primary among these dialogic spaces has been the IKHMG’s ‘flagship farm’ initiative and the community symposium, Kaipara Moana: Looking back…thinking forward, held in 2014. The central research questions that this paper addresses is: How can community dialogue support the development of community driven integrated environmental management and bridge divides between community members, landowners, indigenous groups and environmental managers? What processes of dialogue are effective in achieving these aims and how can community-based dialogue contribute to catchment management frameworks? The research paper is based on ethnographic engagement with the IKHMG over a six month period in 2014, including during the Community Symposium and on in-depth interviews conducted with key members of the IKHMG, including project coordinators, indigenous leaders, farmer, and environmental managers. The project critically examines this project using concepts of participatory dialogue and community participation in environmental initiatives, including the use of mātauranga Māori within environmental Presented at Bridging Divides: Spaces of Scholarship and Practice in Environmental Communication The Conference on Communication and Environment, Boulder, Colorado, June 11-14, 2015 https://theieca.org/coce2015 Page 2 of 22 management and environmental policy development. The paper argues that initiatives such as community symposia are effective dialogic tools in engaging community in integrated management approaches. However, translating support into integrated environmental management practices continues to pose a serious challenge, exposing the limits to community participatory communication. Presented at Bridging Divides: Spaces of Scholarship and Practice in Environmental Communication The Conference on Communication and Environment, Boulder, Colorado, June 11-14, 2015 https://theieca.org/coce2015 Page 3 of 22 Introduction This paper analyses the processes community engagement and dialogue which are part of an ongoing collaborative stakeholder partnership project to ‘restore the health and productivity of the Kaipara Harbour’ in Northland, New Zealand. This project - the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group – is a multi-stakeholder partnership, led by indigenous (Māori) groups. The project seeks to bridge several divides; adopting a large-scale ‘whole of ecosystem’ conceptual approach to understanding and addressing the environmental pressures on the Kaipara Harbour and catchment; pursuing the integration of Western science and mātauranga Māori (traditional indigenous knowledge) into their environmental and social analysis; and between community, indigenous, landowners and environmental managers through participatory community engagement concerning the environmental pressures on the Kaipara Harbour; lastly, the project seeks to draw attention to gaps existing in management framework, limiting the potential for integrated management. As a partnership, the IKHMG is centrally concerned with the creation of deliberative and dialogic spaces through which community partnership and collaboration is formed, cultivated and expanded, and through which integrated management is instituted. Primary among these dialogic spaces has been the IKHMG’s ‘flagship farm’ initiative and the community symposium, Kaipara Moana: Looking back…thinking forward, held in 2014. The central research questions that this paper addresses is: How can community dialogue support the development of community driven integrated environmental management and bridge divides between community members, landowners, indigenous groups and environmental managers? What processes of dialogue are effective in achieving these aims and how can community-based dialogue contribute to catchment management frameworks? The research paper is based on substantial ethnographic engagement with the Integrated Kaipara Harbour Management Group over a six month period in 2014, including during the Community Symposium and on in-depth interviews conducted with key members of the IKHMG, including project coordinators, indigenous leaders, farmer and landowners, and environmental managers and policy makers. The project critically examines this project using concepts of participatory dialogue and community participation in environmental initiatives, including the use of mātauranga Māori within environmental management and environmental policy development. The paper argues that initiatives such as community symposia are effective dialogic tools in engaging community in integrated management approaches. However, although environmental awareness among community members may be substantial, and involvement in environmental initiatives may be well-supported as a result of community-based dialogue, translating support into integrated environmental management practices Presented at Bridging Divides: Spaces of Scholarship and Practice in Environmental Communication The Conference on Communication and Environment, Boulder, Colorado, June 11-14, 2015 https://theieca.org/coce2015 Page 4 of 22 continues to pose a serious challenge, exposing the limits to community participatory communication. Significant policy and regulatory barriers continue limit the capacity of the community to institute these practices and here the practical, action-oriented theory articulated by Flyvbjerg (2001) is useful in illuminating the shortcomings of normative participatory communication approaches. The paper concludes by identifying the need for detailed inquiry into policy development processes with which community participatory efforts must engage. Participation, dialogue and communication As many authors have recently done, Walker (2007) recognises, participation has become increasingly institutionalised in recent decades, both as ‘context and processes’ or as ‘rights and principles’, in different settings. The ‘paradigm shift’ (Jenkins and Henley, 2013) in NRM and its contextualising communicative practices must be seen in this context, however substantive questions over the possibilities of such institutionalised processes and the nature of public participation within decision- making processes remain (Dodson, 2014; Senecah, 2004). The deliberative (Walker, 2007) or dialogic (Philips, 2011) turn however, highlights the necessity of high quality public participation in environmental decision making and policy setting processes. A dialogic mode of engagement implies a shift from professionalised communications and mass communication approaches towards democratic and participatory engagement in decision-making. As Brulle (2010) argues, environmental communication should be directed towards supporting civic engagement and ‘scientific citizenship’, in which publics become involved in science and policy processes, including decision-making, particularly through articulating alternative discourses of community values in relation to environmental management. Participation implies a dialogic form of communication and respect for the perspectives and culture of the project participants and the processes of meaning-making in which these community members engage (Dutta, 2011, pp. 37-38). Dialogue is a dynamic, transformative process through which participatory relations are constituted and positive outcomes enabled (Singhal, 2001). Dialogic engagement is an authentic, reflexive process focused on creating spaces in which the voices of social change participants can be activated and through which structural impediments to change may be overcome. Phillips (2011) articulates a useful notion of dialogue in her discussion of community. The discourse of ‘dialogue and participation’ (and partnership) connotes equitable, democratic relations, in which dialogue and action are directed towards social equity (Phillips, 2011; 59). Phillips’ (2011; 61) notion, in which dialogue possesses a relational quality, rather than a normative meaning associated with ‘discourses of participation and empowerment’, brings us to a concept of dialogue familiar to the field of communication for social change – and alerts us to the potential structuring of ‘partnership’ by elite interests. Here, dialogue and communication are understood as “horizontal processes of information exchange and interaction” (Morris, in Phillips, 2011; 65), as opposed to hierarchical or linear communication, controlled by elites yet promoted as open and participatory. Presented at Bridging Divides: Spaces of Scholarship and Practice in Environmental Communication The Conference on Communication and Environment, Boulder, Colorado, June